Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER 3
FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DELINEATION
OF URBAN FRINGES
A. MEANING AND CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN-RURAL FRINGES
The shift from 20th to the 21st century has given concerns to urban
geographers for the processes like urban dissolution, functional destabilization, urban
gentrification, urban blight, regionalization, and beside others, globalization. The
development of urban fringe areas hitherto has largely been described as a
suburbanization process which is closely related to the general stage of urban
advancement. Fringe areas are directly profited from the urban growth surpluses of
the core-city. Urban development with the new millennium is characterized by fading
structural boundaries and the outward shift of urban population i.e. in the hinterland
of cities, such areas are also the preferred habitats of rural migrants, and incorporate a
growing area of rural landscapes. Population growth and distribution as well as
building activities are becoming increasingly dispersed. The out-migration of
inhabitants from urban core areas is accompanied by the suburbanization of
employment. The development of the productive sector shifts towards the urban-rural
fringe which, in meantime, becomes a destination of tertiary uses mainly for the
communication, entertainment or business administration sectors. The expansion of
activities also gave rise to an increased out-migration, especially customer-oriented
services to fringe areas.
a) Concept of Urban Fringe
Smith's discussion (1937) of the "urban fringe" around Louisiana marks the
first use of this term to signify "the built-up area just outside the corporate limits of
the city." As a landscape phenomenon, the fringe area varies from city to city, and
102
from one time to another. Around several cities in the Netherlands a fringe is barely
recognizable; Paris is somewhat similar to the United States in the inter- mingling and
scatter of land use, but there is a close dependence on public transport; London is
different because of its Green Belt, although there is some scattering of land use, and
some villages are located within this belt. In general, Dickinson (1967) concludes
that, the modern European city "exhibits the same tendency to extend and explode" as
the North American metropolis, "but not nearly to the same degree”. Conversely,
some American writers now question whether the urban fringe problem is
disappearing, because "laws permit more cities to supervise zoning within a certain
distance of their borders” (Murphy, 1966).
Outside North America, many studies conducted, for example, in Sydney
(Wills, 1945), Adelaide (Smith, 1966), Melbourne (Johnston, 1966), and in London
(Pahl, 1965) and Johannesburg (Hart and Partridge, 1966). The literature on urban
fringe before 1970 makes a confusion of terminology and lack of clear delineation in
case studies. The problem of evaluating and comparing cases has been increased by
the following aspects:
i. their range in time, as prevailing economic conditions influences the rate of
growth and internal characteristics of the fringe;
ii. the range in size of the urban center, from a small village to a metropolis or
standard metropolitan statistical area, each with inherent differences in its fringe,
according to the rate of growth, functions, and hierarchical relationship of the
central place;
iii. the variation in type and degree of zoning control of urban invasion beyond a
city's corporate limits, so that London's modified Green Belt results in a very
different form of guided "over- spill" to Eugene-Springfield's "uncontrolled
population expansion" (Martin, 1953 and 1957);
103
iv. differing social, economic and political contexts of the studies from different
countries; and
v. differing aims and interests of various research workers.
b) Definition and Delineation of an Urban Fringe
What and where the urban fringe is. A precise definition and to obtain a map is
not possible, but generally the urban fringe means those areas just beyond the built-up
part of a city subjected to intense development pressures (for a thorough discussion of
definitions, see Bourne and Simmons (1978), Systems of Cities. Oxford, Oxford
University Press). The Fringe is not a line on map; it is a zone of radially diminishing
urban-style activities. It is the existence of a fringe that prevents one being able to
distinguish the urban from the rural, since the fringe has features of both.
The urban-rural fringe (URF) is the zone of transition in land use, social
and demographic characteristics, lying between (a) the continuously built- up
urban and suburban areas of the central city, and (b) the rural hinterland,
characterized by the almost complete absence of non-farm dwellings, occupations
and land use, and of urban and rural social orientation; an incomplete range
and penetration of urban utility services; uncoordinated zoning or planning
regulations; a-real extension beyond although contiguous with the political
boundary of the central city; and an actual and potential increase in population
density, with the current density above that of surrounding rural districts but
lower than the central city. These characteristics may differ both in zonal and
sectoral way, and can be modified through time (Pryor, 1968).
Its definition shifts depending on the global location, but typically in Europe
where urban areas are intensively managed to prevent urban sprawl and protect
agricultural land the urban fringe will be characterized by certain land uses which
104
have either purposely moved away from the urban area, or require much larger tracts
of land.
The conceptual definition of urban rural fringe was propounded by R.J. Pryor
in 1968. It is a zone of transition between the continuously built-up and suburban
areas of the central city and rural hinterland. The Urban-Rural Fringe Area has also
been defined as “the area of transition between well recognized urban land use and
the area devoted to agriculture”. Therefore, urban-rural fringe is a continuous area
that starts beyond the urban limits of cities.
A more comprehensive definition of rural-urban fringe given by Herington
(1984), describes the distinctive characteristics that it is an area which is partly
assimilated in the growing urban complex, which is still partly rural and where many
of the residents live in the countryside, but are not socially and economically forming
part of it.
Blizzard and Anderson (1952) have defined URF as the area of “mixed urban
and rural land use between the points where full city services cease to be available,
and the where agricultural land use predominate”.
In Asian countries, especially in China, rural urban fringe is defined as the
surface located outside the urban outskirts/ the limit of the built-up surface to the
region with rural features. It has been preferred to give the term ‘fringe’ instead of
periurban because it is considered that the force of the town alters the features of the
fringe and not vice versa through the penetration of the village features into the town
or the fringe perimeter (Xu Feng, 2004).
In Indian scenario, “the Urban-Rural Fringe (URF) is an area of mixed urban
and rural population and land use, which begins at the point where agricultural land
use appear near the city and extend to the point where villages have distinct urban
105
land uses or where some persons, at least from village community commute to city
daily for work or other purposes” (Husain, 2007). The URF area is neither truly urban
nor truly rural. It has certain characteristic land use for example, garden centers, fruit,
vegetable and floriculture fields, dairy works, poultry, farm houses, agro-based
industries, boarding schools, colleges, new residential colonies etc. There is constant
change in the land use. Land shifts from primary (agriculture) to secondary and
tertiary economic activities. Therefore, these areas provide good opportunities of
employment for both rural and urban population (Asif, 2010).
Metropolitan fringe areas have traditionally been seen as:
i. featuring a diversity of land uses that vary in relation with their urban and rural
linkages;
ii. “transitional” in nature suggesting from one side “a patterned sequence of uses
that become progressively more agrarian in orientation as one recedes from the
urban centre”;
iii. inversely, “agricultural land uses, employment and rural linkages are seen as
giving way to urban-oriented activities as distance to the city centre diminishes”;
and
iv. populated mainly by poor residents recently arrived from rural areas, being
engaged in multiple income-generating activities, mostly informal (Browder et
al., 1995).
Urban Fringes acquire following heterogeneous patterns of growth, such as:
i. Metropolitan growth engulfing existing farmlands and villages.
ii. Rural migrants creating a “transitional social space” or “temporary holding
location” in a rural- to-urban migration process.
106
iii. Suburbanization processes where urban dwellers move to the fringe searching
for advantages in land rent, or to capitalize opportunities for land acquisition,
speculation and informal enterprise (Browder et al., 1995).
The urban-rural fringe is also known as the outskirts or the urban hinterland, and
can be described as the "landscape interface between town and country", or also as the
transition zone where urban and rural uses mix and often clash (Garreau, 1991).
Alternatively, it can be viewed as a landscape type in its own right, one forged from
an interaction of urban and rural land uses.
c) A Review of Related Terms Attributed to Urban Fringe
Because of the diversity in understanding the concept and meaning of urban
fringe and related terms, a number of attempts have been made to clarify concepts,
and to differentiate between commonly used terms. After reviewing some ten
definitions, Kurtz and Eicher (1958) differentiate between "fringe" and "suburb";
Wissink (1962) defines 'fringe," "suburbs," "pseudo-suburbs," "satellites" and
"pseudo-satellites"; Schnore (1957) distinguishes between "satellites" and "suburbs";
and a number of writers have described different types of suburbs, some of which
may be synonymous with the "fringe".
Martin (1957) has discussed satellite settlements with urban character.
Areal differentiations have also been made, qualitatively, within the fringe: the "urban
fringe" and the "rural-urban fringe" (Andrews, 1942); the "limited fringe" and the
"extended fringe" (McKain and Burnight, 1953); the "suburban fringe zone" and the
"outlying adjacent zone" (Reinemenn, 1960); and inner and outer fringe areas
(Wissink, 1962). American Census categories permit the differentiation of urban
fringe, rural non- farm (RNF), and rural farm (RF) within the Chicago fringe (Duncan
and Reiss, 1956), and "true fringe," "partial fringe," and "adjacent rural townships"
outside incorporated Detroit (Myers and Beegle, 1947); the area between the
107
Melbourne Metropolitan Area and Melbourne Statistical Division boundaries in 1966
Census of the Commonwealth of Australia provides a comparable census zone. The
interest of human ecologists in the fringe has added the undefined terms "rururban
fringe" and "rururbanization" to the literature; and "slurb," the "slopped-over suburb,"
is also another more deviant terminology (Parsons, 1967).
The period which extended from 1940’s onward by the end of 1970 has
marked a period in which enormous work carried the aspects of urban fringe areas.
After a gap of quarter century, this aspect again gained focus on research, as the
world’s population increased at a faster rate since 1990’s. More and more people
settled in urban areas to live. Rapid urbanization and industrialization resulted the
formation of ‘Development Zones’ and ‘Real Estate’ hotspots, slattern a great amount
of land brought in use and capital invested, which results in the serious social and
ecological problems. In the coming decades, the world’s rapid urbanization will be
one of the greatest challenges to ensuring human welfare and a viable global
environment. According to current estimates, cities occupy 4 per cent of the world’s
terrestrial surface which dwell by almost half of the global population, consume close
to three-quarters of the world’s natural resources, and generate three-quarters of its
pollution and wastes. Moreover, the United Nations estimates that virtually all net
global population and economic growth over the next 30 years will occur in world
cities, leading to a doubling of current populations.
The multidisciplinary scope of the subject invokes the interest from
geographers and ecologists, to urban planners and civil engineers, to sociologists, to
administrators and policy makers, students and finally the common man. Now the
urban fringe related problems are not relates much concern in the developed countries
but, they are getting the concerns especially in developing world, where urban
population is increasing with a rapid pace.
108
In recent studies the term urban fringe again has deviated in time, place and
the urge of the research. City region, umland (Chang, 1961), hinterland, boomburbs
(United States Census, 2000) urban field, city periphery, peri-urban area, edge city
(Garreau, 1991), growth areas (Best and Coppock, 1962), exurbs (Spectorsky, 1955),
suburbs, penurbia (Godard, 2006), rural-urban interface, Prime Farmland Area
(USDA, 1997) etc., started be used by the researchers and different agencies.
Zeilhofer and Topanotti (2008) in their study of central Brazil, have used urban fringe
as ‘informal settlements’ as it is neither included purely in urban nor in rural category.
Some have termed as ‘rural-urban fringe’ but, on evolutionary basis it should be taken
as ‘urban-rural fringe’ as recently used by Anbumozhi (2007), in his work on Eco-
industrial Clusters in Urban-Rural Fringe Areas in Japan. The researcher too has
widely used this form (urban-rural fringe).
In recent American studies the authors have seen urban fringe areas as the
commuter towns, dormitory towns, college towns, resort towns, mill towns, project
towns and many more. Despite the lessons from the American experience, in some
developing countries such as China and India and the United Arab Emirates, the ‘edge
city’ is quickly emerging as an important new development formed as automobile
ownership skyrockets and marginal land which is bulldozed for development. The
outskirts of Bangalore in India, for example, are increasingly replete with mid-rise
mirrored-glass office towers set amid lush gardens and sprawling parking lots where
many foreign companies and corporate have set up head offices, retail centres, shops
etc. Dubai and Abudhabi offers other examples of such marvelous development.
d) Functional Characteristics of Urban-Rural Fringe Area
An urban-rural fringe can be described as the hinterland between town and
country or alternatively as the transition zone where urban and rural uses mix and
often clash. An urban fringe is characterized by certain land uses which have either
purposely moved away from the urban area, or require much larger tracts of land
109
(Anbumozhi, 2007).Despite these urban uses the fringe remains largely open with the
majority of the land is in agriculture, woodland or other rural use. However the
quality of the countryside around urban areas tends to be low with severance between
areas of open land and badly maintained woodlands and hedgerows.
The urban-rural fringe is the boundary zone outside the urban area proper
where rural and urban land uses intermix. It is an area of transition from agricultural
and other rural land uses to urban use. Located well within the urban sphere of
influence the fringe is characterized by a wide variety of land use including dormitory
settlements housing middle-income commuters who work in the main urban area.
Over time the characteristics of the fringe change from largely rural to largely urban.
Suburbanization takes place at the urban boundary of urban-rural fringe (Anbumozhi,
2007).
Problems stem from the competing land uses within this zone and the constant
pressure for new development, even in areas that have green belt status (London) or
other forms of protection. The issues of land use and prospective change are
significant and are increasing in number.
Fig. 3.1 Transitional Zones of Urban-Rural Fringe and City Hinterland
110
An urban-rural fringe is an area characterized by a mixture of urban and rural
features. As a result of the influence of the expanding city, the rural character of the
fringe is gradually or sometimes very abruptly replaced by a more urban profile in
terms of land use, employment and income, and culture. With this process of rural-
urban transformation, pressure on land rises because of migration from the core city
and rural areas and natural population growth. The pressure on land is further
aggravated through the use of land for urban purposes, such as construction of
building, urban residences and garbage disposal. Increasing pressure on land in the
fringe villages not only changes the land-use character, but also causes degradation of
natural resources in the rural areas. Living conditions of the rural communities are
affected due to unstructured land-use planning, lack of adequate civil services and
inability of the administrative system to handle institutional and factual problems of
the changing urban-rural fringe areas (Anbumozhi, 2007).
The urban-rural fringe areas play a key role in providing the essential
commodities needed in urban areas while acting as a playground for the rural
economy. In almost all developing countries, rural areas are the centers of agricultural
production, while the urban areas are the major consumers of it. The conversion of the
agricultural produce into edible and or marketable products takes place often in
urban-rural fringe which has an equal access to the raw materials and the markets
which mainly lie in urban areas. In this process of adding value to the raw agricultural
produce, the fringe areas suffer considerably with the environmental damages in the
form waste disposal and resource constraints (Anbumozhi, 2007). The Fig.3.1 shows
a typical example of activities generally seen in an urban-rural fringe area.
111
B. RURAL-URBAN CONTINUUM: MODELS AND PERCEPTION OF
PLACES
a) Rural-Urban Transition
The Dictionary of Human Geography explains ‘rural-urban fringe’ as
“rururban”, and defines the term ‘as the area located between the town and the rural
zone, without delimiting it accurately in space, where the urban functions intermingle
with the rural ones.’ It further defines the rural-urban fringe, specifying its limits and
position within the framework of territorial systems only at a descriptive level, as a
transition zone between the two extremes (Avram, 2009). The Oxford Dictionary of
Geography explain the term as being the transition zone between urban and rural, but
also between urban and suburban, the defining element is being the land use (sport
grounds, airports, malls, parks etc.), which gives an urban character to the rural area.
The inner and outer limits of this area are mostly determined through a method
elaborated by Weiguo and Tian (2002). They proposed an analysis of the satellite
images for delimiting different types of land use achieving the distinction among
urban, rural, and transition zone at the pixel levels. The calculus gives the threshold
among the three zones, the preponderant percentage emphasizing the limit through a
t- test of differentiation of the rural-urban continuum, also rendered by Ianos and
Heller (2006).
b) Meaning of Rural-Urban Continuum
Some sociologists have used the concept of rural-urban continuum to stress the
idea that there are no sharp breaking points to be found in the degree or quantity of
rural urban differences. Redfield (1947) has given the concept of rural -urban
continuum on the basis of his study of Mexican peasants. The rapid process of
urbanization through the establishment of industries, urban traits and facilities has
decreased the differences between villages and cities (Fig. 3.2).
112
Source: The Royal Geographical Society, IBG sponsored project.
Fig. 3.2 A Cartoon Showing Pattern of Rural-Urban Continuum and
Decreasing Distance between Urban and Rural Landscapes.
There are some sociologists who treat rural-urban as dichotomous categories
have differentiated the two at various levels including differences in occupational
structure, environment, in size of communities, in density of population, in social
mobility and direction of migration, in social stratification, and in the systems of
social interaction.
A third view regarding rural and urban communities comes from Pocock and
Hudson (1978) who believe that, both village and city are the elements of the same
civilization and hence neither rural-urban dichotomy nor continuum is meaningful.
Rao (2001) has pointed out in the Indian context, that although both village and town
form a part of the same civilization characterized by institution of kinship and caste
system in pre-British India, there were certain specific institutional forms and
organizational ways distinguishing social and cultural life in towns from that of
villages. Thus, according to him, rural-urban continuum makes more sense. Ghurye
113
(1952) believes that, urbanization is due to migration of people from village to city
and this has an impact on the migrants and their families.
MacIver (1931) remarks that, though the communities are normally divided
into rural and urban, the line of demarcation is not always clear cut between these
two. There is no sharp demarcation to tell where the city ends and countryside begins.
Each village possesses some elements of the city and every city carries some
characteristic features of the village.
Mukherjee (1987) has presented a continuum model by considering the degree
of urbanization as a useful conceptual tool for understanding rural-urban relations.
Sorokin and Zimmerman in their book Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology (1929)
have stated that, the factors distinguishing rural from urban communities include
occupation, size and density of population as well as mobility differentiation and
stratification.
c) Models in the Study of Rural-Urban Continuum
The model that includes the variable suburban settlement belong to periurban
perimeter is proven by Waugh (2000). The rural-urban continuity is the inclusion of
the fringe, through intense transformation of the area exerted by the urban, which
permanently alters its functions (Fig. 3.3).
Cloke's 1979 model of structure of the urban-rural continuum shows how land-
use might change with distance from the city (Fig. 3.4). In this model, there is no
single typical rural settlement, but rather a spectrum between declining villages in the
deep countryside to suburbanized villages and overspill towns in the urban fringe.
114
Fig. 3.3 Rural-Urban Continuum as Proposed by David Waugh.
Fig. 3.4 Cloke's Model of the Structure of Urban-Rural Continuum.
The distinction between rural and urban is probably inescapable for descriptive
purposes; however, it often implies a dichotomy which encompasses both spatial and
sectoral dimensions (Tacoli, 1998). Rural and urban populations are usually defined
by a certain size of residence in settlements for all practical purposes such as censuses
115
and other similar statistical exercises. Agriculture is assumed to be the principal
activity of rural population whereas industrial production and services are thought for
the urban. In reality, the ways in which nations define urban and rural can be far more
complex. The boundaries of urban settlements are usually more blurred than
portrayed administratively; population movement, temporary and seasonal migration,
are not reflected in census figures thus making enumerations of rural and urban
populations unreliable. Strikingly, a large number of households in urban areas tend
to rely on rural resources, and rural populations are increasingly engaged in non-
agricultural activities. The definition of urban centers boundary is critical and
subjective. In Asia, agricultural and non-agricultural activities are spatially integrated
in metropolitan extension areas. Therefore, the distinction between rural and urban
has become problematic (Anbumozhi, 2007).
The perceived link between the city and the countryside is evolving rapidly,
shifting away from the assumptions of mainstream paradigms to new conceptual
landscapes where rural-urban links are being redefined. In this conceptual field, the
peri-urban interface is still generally considered as a transitional zone between city
and countryside, often described “not a discrete area, but rather a diffuse territory
identified by combinations of features and phenomena, generated largely by activities
within the urban zone proper” (Nottingham and Liverpool Universities, 1998).
The urban rural interface areas are always difficult to define and, moreover,
they are also bound with problems inherent to the conceptualization of both rural and
urban worlds. In that context, policies aiming to alleviate poverty are still considering
the existence of either rural or urban poverty, while the reality of many regions in
developing world suggests that every-day life and livelihood strategies of “multi-
spatial households” are increasingly taking place within an integrated rural-urban
space (Tacoli, 1998 and Rigg, 1997).
116
A sharp distinction between rural and urban settlements generally assumes that
the livelihoods or the inhabitants can equally be reduced to two main categories:
agriculture based in rural areas and manufacture and services based in urban centres.
Yet recent research suggests that, even where activities can be described as either
urban or rural and are spatially separated, there is always a continued and varied
exchange of resources between rural and urban areas. The sectoral interaction consists
of rural activities taking place in urban areas (e.g. urban agriculture) or traditionally
urban activities as manufacturing and services taking place in rural areas, or even the
peri-urban flows to and from rural industries that are spatially concentrated around
urban areas (Tacoli, 1998).
C. DELIMITATION OF URBAN FRINGE: APPROACHES, METHODS AND
STUDY MODELS
a) Importance of Delimitation of Urban Fringe
Understanding urban growth and change is critical to city planners and
resource managers in rapidly changing environments (Knox, 1993; Turner et al.,
1993).Evaluating the impact of urban growth on the environment and to
understanding the dynamics of complex urban systems involve modeling and
simulation which require innovative methodologies and robust techniques. A number
of analytical and static urban models have been developed, that are based on diverse
theories such as urban geometry, size relationship between cities, economic functions
and social and ethnic patterns with respect to city structures. However, these models
explain urban expansion and evolving patterns instead of predicting future urban
development. For understanding the spatial consequences of urban growth, a dynamic
modeling approach is preferred. In Geographical Information Science (GISc.),
dynamic modeling has rapidly gained popularity in recent years among urban
planners and geographers as an urban simulation tool (Oguz, 2004).
117
In the regime of the urban theory (as I have mentioned above, for a sustainable
development, the areas surrounding the towns must be seen as a whole), liberal
economic policy considers that territorial systems developed by means of private
capital and partly public capital. This situation is legislated by public administration
for ensuring environmental protection and harmonious development of the human
settlement system (Stone, 1993), as we shall further notice by analyzing the methods
used for the delimitation of the rural-urban fringe (Avram, 2009).
b) Approaches and Methods of Delimiting the Urban Fringe
In order to exemplify the approaches and methods for determining the urban-
rural limits, researchers have used the quantification and systematization achieved by
Gallent, Andersson, and Bianconi (2006), based on the frequency these instruments
are used by experts in the field. Further, provide the detail of most frequent and
scientifically important methods, classifying them into thirteen which are follows:
i. Margin of Built-Up Zones: The base principle for settling the inner margin of
the fringe is imposed by the margin of the built-up surface, specificity of the
urban, while the outer margin is given by the rural area. This method is the most
frequently used by Countryside Agency, UK (2002), Bunkerand Halloway –
Australia (2001), Foot Italia, Italy (2000), and Urban Planning Act, Japan
(1968).
ii. Land Use: This method briefly rendered previously, developed by Weiguo and
Tian (2002) and used by ReUrbA, UK and, Olanda and Broughton, UK (1996).
It involves the analysis of land use for establishing the margins on the base of
the binary pixels principle. If 1 is attributed to the cells where urban
predominates and 0 to the cells where rural predominates, then the transition
area develops where the values combine and there is also located the rural urban
fringe and its margins.
118
iii. Transition Zones: The method that involves the determination of the margins
through the empirical analysis of the transition area between urban and rural as a
discontinuity /differentiation of the geographical space; the method was used by
Hite – USA (1998).
iv. Metropolitan Zone: It is the case of Montreal model that uses the functional
and structural features of the territorial administrative units within a
metropolitan zone for settling the margins of different zones from the studied
perimeter.
v. Inside the Rural: A less frequent situation, through which the urban functions
can be found within a specific rural perimeter due to delocalization; the most
used principle is that of the densification of the buildings and built-up surfaces
generally (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001).
vi. Urban Meets Rural: It is the situation where the urban continuum appeared for
a long period and the analysis of the present town infrastructure and of the
services offered to population defines the margins of the fringe; a peculiarity of
this case is the possible lack of the traditional fringe.
vii. Pressure Zones: It is expressed as the urban shadow through which the town
exerts pressure upon the neighbouring regions and involves the study of the
influence the center and the urban outskirts have upon neighbouring areas
through the influence the last one acquires for penetrating the margins.
viii. Population: It is an indicator frequently used in different studies of human
settlements geography through the analysis of demographic structures and their
distribution in space. Such an example is represented by the zones of urban
influence established based on the demographic density values (Fig. 3.5). It can
be achieved in GIS system using the administrative territories and the
119
inhabitants’ total number. By means of interpolation and Voronoi analysis there
are obtained isolines that limits the areas characterized by different values of the
same influence. Consequently, there is achieved an analysis of the dynamics of
the parameters during time, but also at present, by superposing different used
values (demographic structure, professional and educational structure,
inhabitants’ number, number of owned vehicles, etc.) of what the areas making
up the metropolitan zone represent.
Fig. 3.5 Zones of Urban Influence by Means of Demographic Density
(Voronoi Analysis)
120
Source: Pacione M., 1999
Fig. 3.6 Determination of the Fringe Margins through the Analysis Agricultural
Rent vs. Incomes Generated by Rent (after Alonso’s Model, 1986).
(B=rent value before urban extension, C= rent value after extension,
UF= fringe margin, R= rent value)
Source: Pacione M., 1999
Fig. 3.7 The Effect of Urban Extension upon Land Value.
(B=land value before urban extension, C= land value after extension UF= fringe margin
chosen, A1=land initial price, A2= the price after extension)
121
ix. Territorial-administrative policy: A decisive factor for establishing the
margins of the fringe through the decision power of imposing restrictions for
horizontal development or, on the contrary, permissive measures according to
the sustainability capacity of the territory. The method may be applied using the
model proposed by Alonso (1986), where the limit urban-rural is given by the
optimum of the agricultural rent vs. the incomes generated by rents, which may
lead to an excessive horizontal extension of the town without a restrictive
administrative policy. As it can be noticed in (Fig. 3.6), the increase of the rent
value (curve C), on the background of urban extension and of a greater life
quality within the fringe, leads to the renunciation at the income generated by
agricultural rent in favour of a potential greater income generated by rent. The
inner margin of the fringe migrates outward fromUF1 to UF2. This method is
extremely precise for settling the inner margins, but less accurate for the outer
margins, due to the reduced differences of the rural-rural rent.
x. Economy: It is the binder of present civilization. Through a restrictive policy
meant to preserve the natural areas from the green-yellow belt of the cities, it is
determined an increase of the value of the terrains belonging to rural-urban
fringe (Fig.3.7). The method involves the utilization of microeconomic
principles that helps us determine both the inner and the outer margins of the
fringe by analyzing the demand and offer and by monitoring the land price.
xi. Accessibility: As a method of studying the fringe limits it refers to the quality,
quantity, and distribution of road infrastructure that, due to its nature, maybe a
limiting factor for the fringe or an expansion factor on both sides of the access
route, as well as along it, due to its capacity of shortening the distances to the
working place; for example, railway infrastructure, through the possibility of
reducing distances, but only in case there are permanent trains at favourable
intervals and regular-established stops; tram/subway lines have the same impact
and may be taken into account for settling the margins of the rural-urban fringe.
122
xii. Landscape: As a value of geographical continuity it can be used as a method for
determining the spatial territorial limits. The note of the transition dominant
landscape raises certain problems as those of the railway lines that introduce the
fringe inside the urban space through the corridors they create, imposing the
aspect of the fringe landscape.
xiii. Way of Life: It is defining in the areas where the margin is subject to certain
interferences and where this aspect can be analyzed, because it supposes the
presence of a permanent inhabitancy and of a social life expressed at the
community level (Avram, 2009).
According to another study of urban encroachment in China by Tian, G. J.et al.,
2002, it is difficult to judge urban encroachment on cultivated land degree by the area
because the study area is not homogenous. So the index is built to study the region
disparity of urban encroachment on cultivated land. The equation is as follows:
Where, RI is urban encroachment on cultivated land degree, CU is urban
encroachment on cultivated land area of the study area from 1988-2000 and TL is the
total area of the study area. The index is classified into six grades.
Grade 1 is 0 RI -0.001, where there are fewer towns, lower urbanization and
nearly no urban expansion.
Grade II is 0.001 RI to 0.1, where there are lower urban expansion and fewer
cultivated land loss.
Grade III is 0. 1 RI to 0.307, where there are a few urban expansion and
cultivated land loss.
Grade IV is 0.307 RI to 1.105, where there is more urban expansion and
more cultivated land loss.
Grade V is 1.105 RI to 2.363, where there are larger urban expansion and
cultivated land loss.
123
Grade VI is RI 2.363, where there are the largest urban expansion and a
great amount of cultivated land loss.
On the basis of these indices urban encroachment pattern can be analyzed and
expressed in the form of maps for land use land cover change in a region.
c) Study Models Applicable for Delimitation of Urban Fringe
By applying the theories upon the territorial systems on the base of the
aforementioned methods, it resulted a series of models of the fringe positioning and
shape. The simplest or the most idealist and descriptive model was given by Burgess
(1925), that when the belts display different features and succeed each other
concentrically, starting from the town center – residential zone and/or former
industrial zone – urban outskirts (which make up the urban perimeter) – suburban
zone – periurban zone (which make up the rural-urban fringe zone).
Source: Rodrigue, J-P et al. 2009
Fig. 3.8 Processing after Burgess Model for Urban Land Use.
124
He divided cities in a set of concentric circles expanding from the downtown
to the suburbs. This representation was built from Burgess' observations of a number
of American cities, notably Chicago, for which he provided empirical evidence. The
model assumes a relationship between the socio-economic status (mainly income) of
households and the distance from the CBD. Further from the CBD, the better the
quality of housing, but the longer the commuting time. Thus, accessing better housing
is done at the expense of longer commuting times (and costs). According to this
mono-centric model (Fig 3.8); a large city can be divided into six concentric zones
(Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Description of Six Concentric Zones According Burgess Model.
Zone I
Central Business District (CBD) where most of the
tertiary employment is located and where the urban
transport infrastructure is converging, making this
zone the most accessible.
Zone II
Immediately adjacent to the CBD a zone where
many industrial activities locate to take advantage
of nearby labor and markets. Further, most
transport terminals, namely port sites and railyards,
are located adjacent to the central area.
Zone III
This zone is gradually been reconverted to other
uses by expanding manufacturing / industrial
activities. It contains the poorest segment of the
urban population, notably first generation
immigrants living, in the lowest housing conditions.
125
Zone IV
Residential zone dominated by the working class
and those who were able to move away from the
previous zone (often second generation
immigrants). This zone has the advantage of being
located near the major zones of employment (I and
II) and thus represents a low cost location for the
working class.
Zone V
This zone represents higher quality housing linked
with longer commuting costs.
Zone VI
Mainly high class and expensive housing in a rural,
suburbanized, setting. The commuting costs are the
highest. Prior to mass diffusion of the automobile
(1930s), most of these settlements were located
next to rail stations.
Although the Burgess model is simple and elegant, it has drawn numerous
criticisms. The model is too simple and limited in historical and cultural applications
up to the 1950s. It is a product of its time. It was developed when American cities
were growing very fast in demographic terms and when motorized transportation was
still uncommon as most people used public transit. The model was developed for
American cities and has limited applicability elsewhere. It has been demonstrated that
pre-industrial cities, notably in Europe, did not at all followed the concentric circles
model. For instance, in most pre-industrial European cities, the center was much more
important than the periphery, notably in terms of social status. The Burgess concentric
model is consequently partially inverted. The concentric model assumed a spatial
separation of place of work and place of residence, which was not generalized until
the twentieth century. However, the Burgess model remains useful as a concept
126
explaining concentric urban development, as a way to introduce the complexity of
urban land use and to explain urban growth in American cities (Rodrigue, et al. 2009).
Source: Barcelona Field Studies Centre S.L.
Fig. 3.9 Hoyts’ Sectoral Model of Urban Land Use
Fig. 3.10 Hoyts' Sectoral Model Applied (and modified) in England
127
The Hoyt model was developed in 1939 (Figs. 3.9 and 3.10) by economist
Homer Hoyt. He developed the Burgess model further, suggesting that urban
settlements’ land uses are modified by their relative accessibility to transport routes.
He expanded Burgess’ five zones, adding another three including outlying business
districts and dormitory suburbs. This model has land use concentrated in wedges or
sectors radiating out from the city centre. For example, factories may be concentrated
along a river, canal or road to form a zone of industry. This would attract low-class
housing, but repel high-class residential land use. There are three explanations for
these land use patterns.
a) Historical: The urban area expanded outwards from the original site which is
where the city centre is found today.
b) Economic: Rents and rates in the CBD became too expensive for people. In
the suburbs there was more land and it was cheaper. Only businesses could
afford to stay in the CBD, but even they needed to make the most of expensive
land by building upwards.
c) Concentrations of similar land uses: One part of the urban area may have all
the advantages for industrial location so that a lot of factories want to locate
there; but few people want to live next door to a factory, so the residential
areas are located elsewhere. Planners also prefer this segregation of land uses
into definite zones.
The multiple nuclei model was proposed in 1945 by C. Harris and E. Ullman.
The model shows that, the cities may grow from not on CBD (Central Business
District), but from several independent growth poles, which are termed as ‘nuclei’.
The advantages of this model lie in its multi nuclei approach - many sources give
slight variants on the model shown in the diagram, since the model is rather flexible
and adapts to local situations (the exact positions of the nuclei are not important but
128
only the basic trends) so it can be modified to match the city under consideration
(Fig. 3.11).
Fig. 3.11 Multiple Nuclei Model of Harris and Ullman.
Fig. 3.12 Main and Secondary Urban Poles and the Positioning of the Fringe
Types (Montreal Model, 2006)
129
The model that emphasizes the best field reality in the analysis of the rural-
urban fringe is that of Montreal city. It used the functional and structural features of
the territorial-administrative units within a metropolitan zone in order to settle the
limits of different zones from the studied perimeter (Fig. 3.12). The model starts from
the premises of studying the functions of the main urban pole, of the secondary urban
poles and of the rapport between them and the perimeter located between them. It also
makes the difference between the fringes of all studied urban centers, as well as of the
rural fringe.
The inner margin of the fringe is generally given by the contact with the town
built-up surface, through its outskirts, while the outer margin by the contact with the
truly rural area. The initially proposed model is a simple model, because it does not
include either the suburbs variable included in the periurban as independent human
settlements with a greater density of the built-up surfaces or the variable of inclusion
of the secondary urban poles within the extended fringe through the externalization of
certain functions of the main urban pole.
However, the model allows us a better vision upon the concentricity of the
belts and their space succession. Consequently, it may represent a theoretical model
for the initiation of the researchers in identifying the aforementioned zones, for a
better implementation of territorial planning and a supporting instrument for decision
makers.
Models that are more complex prove the difficulty in dealing with the
argument because each case is true. At the same time, all these presented models are
correct as they represent only a starting point in the analysis of the territorial systems,
and especially of the rural-urban fringe. Difficulty consists in precisely determining
the zone because its functions are quite diverse and the mixed character between rural
and urban persists, aspect derived from the name itself (Avram, 2009).
130
These classical models, which were all based on North American cities in the
first half of the twentieth century, can be applied with some success to cities in other
places at other times, for example we saw how the models developed in 1940s and
1950s and modified in 1960s and 1970s. In particular, Burgess' model works well to
cities that grew very rapidly, due to massive immigration - a characteristic of many
North American cities. One can look at other variants of these models as applied to
British cities. Further, one can go on to look at models of cities in the less
economically developed countries, such as cities in Asia and Africa.
References
Anbumozhi, V., 2007. Eco-Industrial Clusters in Urban-Rural Fringe Areas- A
Strategic Approach for Integrated Environmental and Economic Planning, Business
and the Environment Research Project, Kansai Research Center, Hyogo, Japan.
Andrews, R. B., 1942. Elements in the urban fringe pattern, Journal of Land and
Public Utility Economics, Vol. 18, May, pp. 169-183.
Asif, K., 2010. Developing agro-processing enterprises in the rural-urban fringe areas
– a view point on sustainable development and propelling rural prosperity, Emerging
Technologies for Sustainable Environment, Proceedings of the International
Conference 29-30th October, Department of Civil Engineering, A.M.U., Aligarh, pp.
592-595.
Avram, S., 2009. The position of rural-urban fringe in the framework of human
settlement system, Forum Geografic. Studii şi cercetări de geografie şi protecţia
mediului, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 139- 145.
Best, R. H. and Champion, A.G. 1970. Regional Conversions of agricultural land to
urban use in England and Wales, reprinted from Transactions and Papers, Institute of
British Geographers, Publication No. 49, pp. 15-22.
Best, R. H. and Coppock, J. T., 1962. The Changing Use of Land in Britain, Faber
and Faber, Chapters 6 and 7.
131
Bourne, L.S. and J.W. Simmons, 1978. Systems of Cities: Readings on Structure,
Growth and Policies, Oxford University Press, New York.
Browder J., Bohland, J.R. and Scarpadi, J.L., 1995. Patterns of development on the
metropolitan fringe - urban fringe expansion in Bangkok, Jakarta and Santiago,
Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 3.
Burgess, E. W., 1925. The Growth of the City. In: The City (eds. R. E. Park, E. W.
Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie), , University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Carter, H. 1981: Urban Geography, New Delhi, p.434.
Dickinson, R. E., 1967. The City Region in Western Europe, Routledge Paperback,
London.
Dickinson, R.E. 1968: City and Region: A Geographical Interpretation, Routledge
and Kegam Paul Ltd. London.
Duncan, Q. D. and Reiss, A. J., 1956. Suburbs and Urban Fringe, Social
Characteristics of Urban and Rural Communities, New York.
Feng, X. (ed.), 2004. Modeling the Spatial Pattern of Urban Fringe, Edit.
International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Enscheda.
Gallent, N., Andersson, J. and Bianconi, M. (eds.), 2006. Plannings on the edge, The
Context for Planning at the Rural-Urban Fringe, Edit. Routledge, London.
Garreau, Joel (1991). Atlanta- The Colour of Money, in Edge City: Life on the New
Frontier. Random House, New York.
Golledge, R., 1959. Sydney's Metropolitan Fringe: A study in urban-rural relations,
Australian Geographer, Vol. 7, p. 243.
Hart, G. H. T. and Partridge, T. C., 1966. Factors in the development of the urban
fringe north-west of Johannesburg, South African Geographical Journal, Vol. 48,
pp. 32-44.
Herbert, D., and Thomas, C., 1982: Urban Geography: A First Approach, Jhon
Wiley & Sons, New Delhi.
132
Herington, 1984. The Outer City, Harper and Row, London.
Hussain, M., 2007. Models in Geography, Rawat Publication, New Delhi.
Ianos, I., Heller, W.2006, Spaţiul, Economie şi Sisteme de Aşezări, Edit. Tehnică,
Bucureşti.
Johnston, J. and Swallow, K. (eds.), 2006. Economics and Contemporary Land use
Policy, Resources for the future, Washington DC.
Johnston, R. J., 1966. The Population characteristics of the urban fringe: A review
and examples, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2, pp. 79-93.
Kurtz, R. A. and Eicher, J. B., 1958. Fringe and suburbs: A confusion of concepts,
Social Forces, Vol. 37, pp. 32-37.
MacIver, R.M., 1931. Society: Its Structure and Changes, New York.
Martin, W. T., 1953. The rural-urban fringe: A study of adjustment to residence
location, Studies in Sociology, No. 1.
Martin, W. T., 1957. Ecological change in satellite rural areas,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, April, pp. 173-183.
McKain, W. C. and Burnight, R. G., 1953. The sociological significance of the rural-
urban fringe: From the rural point of view, Rural Sociology, Vol. 18, pp. 109-116.
Murphy, R. E., 1966. The American City: An Urban Geography, New York.
Myers, R. B. and Beegle, J. A., 1947. Delineation and analysis of the rural-urban
fringe, Applied Anthropology, Vol. 6, pp. 14-22.
Oguz, H., 2004. Modeling Urban Growth and Land Use/Land Cover Change in the
Houston Metropolitan Area from 2002-2030, PhD Dissertation, Subject Forestry,
Texas A & M University.
Pacione, M. (ed.), 1999. Applied Geography: Principles and Practice, Routledge,
London.
133
Pahl, R. E., 1965. Urbs in rure: the metropolitan fringe in Hertfordshire, London,
Geographical Papers, London School of Economics and Political Science, No. 2.
Parsons, H., 1967. Slurb is (sic), Paper presented at the 39th Congress of ANZAAS.,
Melbourne, 1967.
Pocock and Hudson, 1978. Images of the Urban Environment, Macmillan, London.
Pryor, R. J., 1968. Defining the rural-urban fringe Social Forces, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp.
202-215.
Redfield, R., 1947. The folk society, The American Journal of Sociology, October
Vol. 52.
Reinemann, M. W., 1960. The pattern and distribution of manufacturing in the
Chicago area, Economic Geography, Vol. 36, pp. 139-144.
Rodrigue, J. P., Comtois, C. and Slack, B., 2009. The Geography of Transport
Systems, Department of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, New York.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans.
Steiner, F. and Butler, K. (eds.), 2007. Planning and Urban Design Standards, John
Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Schnore, L. F., 1957. Satellites and suburbs, Social Forces, Vol. 36, pp. 121-127.
Smith, D. L., 1966. Market gardening at Adelaide’s urban fringe,
Economic Geography, Vol. 42, p.19.
Smith, T. L., 1937. The population of Louisiana: Its composition and changes,
Loulisiana Butlletini, November, pp. 293.
Sociology Guide, 2011. A Student Guide to Sociology
http://www.sociologyguide.com/industrial-and-urban-society.
Tacoli, C., 1998. Rural-urban interactions: A guide to the literature, Environment And
Urbanization, Vol. 10, No. 1.
Taylor, Griffith 1949: Urban Geography, Methuen and Co. Ltd., London.
134
Tian, at el., 2002. Monitoring Urban Encroachment on Cultivated Land with TM
Images in China, Knowledge Innovation Project, Chinese Academy of Sciences, pp.
2974-75.
United States Department of Agriculture http:// www.usda.gov/
Wills, N. R., 1945. The rural-urban fringe: Some agricultural characteristics with
specific reference to Sydney, Australian Geographer, Vol. 5, pp. 29-35.
Wissink, G. A., 1962. American cities in perspective: With special reference to the
development of their Fringe Areas, Social Geografische Studies, No. 5.
Zeilhofer, P. and Taponotti, V. P., 2008. GIS and Ordination techniques for
evaluation of environmental impacts in informal settlements: A case study from
Cuiaba, Central Brazil, Applied Geography, Vol. 28, pp. 1-15.